Inge v. State
534 S.W.3d 296
Opinion
ORDER
Daryl Inge, acting pro se, appeals the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. We find no error has occurred.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Inge v. State, 534 S.W.3d 296 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
534 S.W.3d 296 (Inge v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.